I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[giblets]

Hell, how do we know there was a huge stone and an armed guard? Maybe that got added to the story somehow?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Jews asked to guard the body and the Romans gave them permission to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

If his disciples couldn't get past the armed guard and the huge stone then how did Jesus do it? Magic? I guess that works if you assume God exists.

Not assuming anything here. The facts are all there. Despite an armed guard, a large stone, 50 pounds of spices and burial wrappings, crucifixion on the cross, the tomb was empty. The wrappings were there, apparently undisturbed. Maybe we should ask for Sherlock Holmes? Holmes asks, why on earth would anyone steal a body and unwrap it. It makes no sense. Holmes would also say that when you remove all other logical explanations, the one that remains must be the truth. Hence, the resurrection. There is no other explanation that fits all the facts.

[giblets]

You're assuming the Bible is factually correct. Yeah, if the Bible were factually correct then it would be true that Jesus rose from the dead. How insightful.

[David Floyd]

That's my point, too. You can't assume that the subject of the debate is true, and then use that assumption to justify your argument in the debate. The reality is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the following statement is all true, partly true, or not true:

Not assuming anything here. The facts are all there. Despite an armed guard, a large stone, 50 pounds of spices and burial wrappings, crucifixion on the cross, the tomb was empty. The wrappings were there, apparently undisturbed.

Your only evidence for this is the fact that the Bible say so, along with writings from people who claim to have been there. But neither of those things constitute evidence. I can claim to see Bigfoot and UFOs, but that doesn't make it true, right?

An eyewitness account of a historical event that is physically possible is fine. An eyewitness account of an "event" we know to be impossible is much more problematic. Unless, of course, you assume that there is a supernatural explanation. But if you are already assuming a supernatural explanation, then what's the point of debating? You can't prove a supernatural event, and attempting to justify a supernatural event by bringing up supposed eyewitness testimony doesn't work, either, because as I said, we routinely dismiss "eyewitness accounts" of things we either know don't exist or can provide a much more reasonable explanation for (ie, if a weather balloon or a military aircraft is flying in the same area where a UFO is "spotted", I think we have our answer, and it's not what the eyewitness is telling us).

[Ben Kenobi]

You're assuming the Bible is factually correct.

Actually, no I'm not. You have testimony from a hostile witness, which confirms certain parts, that Christ died, was buried in the tomb, and that the tomb was empty. This is really strong evidence in favour of these parts.

Then I'm assessing the reliability of Peter's testimony with respect to the wrappings in the tomb. This is standard for any historical account. Peter includes information which is not kind to himself, which increases the reliability of the entire statement that the wrappings were intact. Why would it be so crucial for him, unless he believed that Christ had died on the cross and that he was completely wrong about him?

[giblets]

Actually, no I'm not. You have testimony from a hostile witness, which confirms certain parts, that Christ died, was buried in the tomb, and that the tomb was empty. This is really strong evidence in favour of these parts.

Then I'm assessing the reliability of Peter's testimony with respect to the wrappings in the tomb. This is standard for any historical account. Peter includes information which is not kind to himself, which increases the reliability of the entire statement that the wrappings were intact. Why would it be so crucial for him, unless he believed that Christ had died on the cross and that he was completely wrong about him?

Uhh, where are you getting this "testimony" from? The Bible? You're assuming it wasn't fabricated or altered?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's my point, too. You can't assume that the subject of the debate is true

But I'm not assuming anything. I'm looking at the bible as a historical source and assessing the reliability of it as you would any historical source. Inclusion of a hostile witness testimony that confirms portions of the story is very strong evidence in favour of those parts. Inclusion of negative statements wrt to the primary witnesses increases reliability of the testimony. This is all standard.

Your only evidence for this is the fact that the Bible say so

Well I suppose you'd prefer Plutarch's "Lives of the Noble Greeks?"

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the bible is unreliable. Textually, the bible far surpasses any other ancient work. We have older copies and more of them, so assuming that textual corruption applies equally, we can only conclude that the text of the bible is closer to the original than any other ancient greek or roman work.

The only question that remains is the accuracy of the account, and this we can assess the bible, the same way we do any other historical source. The account for the resurrection is a rather sober account. No one proclaims to have directly observed the occasion, it is inferred through what is left behind. This is a bonus. Critical information is provided in a neutral manner, the disciples are given both positives and negatives, hostile witnesses and their accounts are cited.

If it were concerning a break in and not a supernatural event, you would be quick to conclude that the account is correct. It is because you believe that the supernatural does not exist, that you infer that the bible is incorrect. This is an assumption that does not help you to assess the work.

along with writings from people who claim to have been there. But neither of those things constitute evidence.

Actually, yes they do. Looking again at the bible, you have four different accounts. Two by eyewitnesses, composed at different times, two by non-eyewitnesses compiling the eyewitness accounts. They show individual differences but substantially agree on the main points. The Bible isn't just one historical source, each book is it's own source, because they are all different from one another.

A historical source from ancient times written by an eyewitness is virtually unheard of with the exception of Julius Caesar. This is a substantial boost to the reliability of the documents. Not only do we have this, we have composition times, very close to the actual event, unparalleled in ancient times. The books were written within 20 to 30 years as compared with 200 to 300 years for most ancient sources. An order of magnitude.

I can claim to see Bigfoot and UFOs, but that doesn't make it true, right?

Are you claiming that 500 people saw bigfoot and ufos? That's what the bible claims, or at least Paul does in 1st Corinthians.

An eyewitness account of a historical event that is physically possible is fine. An eyewitness account of an "event" we know to be impossible is much more problematic.

I agree. However, on an evidentiary standard, the bible has a very tough standard. Multiple eyewitness accounts, composed at different times, compiled by someone else, and transmitted by a different body. Copiest standards met, perhaps only by the Masoretic text. Very recent composition date. Inclusion of hostile and critical testimony and witnesses.

Unless, of course, you assume that there is a supernatural explanation. But if you are already assuming a supernatural explanation

Again, I am not assuming a supernatural explanation. I am arguing that a supernatural explanation is the inevitable result because there are no natural explanations that adequately account for the secondary evidence available. It is a proof by exhaustion, by showing how all the natural alternatives fail to provide all of the necessary evidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're assuming it wasn't fabricated or altered?

I'm assuming a fabrication would see fit to whitewash things like Peter's doubt wrt to the resurrection of Christ. This the bible does not do, which increases it's reliability as a historical source.

Actually, quite the opposite. I'm assuming that the bible is a pack of lies, and ferretting out that which is surprising for them to be included in a pack of lies. Fr'instance, saying that Christ is God, bla bla bla, not interesting. Saying that Peter abandoned Christ on the cross, hid in his room, and only came out when women told him that the tomb was empty, and then sprinted to the tomb? That's interesting! Why would a pack of lies include something which puts Peter in a bad light?

[DaShi]

Because it makes for a better story.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or, it's the truth.

I mean, it's a pretty serious blow if your spiritual leader on earth, the best of the disciples, and the head honcho is such a *****?

[DaShi]

Not if you have a message to get across.

[Ben Kenobi]

That your leader is a *****? They need better editorial control. I mean seriously. Who's going to walk around listening to some smelly Jewish fisherman going on about eating another man's body and blood?

[DaShi]

We both know it is not presented that way in the Bible, which is exactly my point. It was a carefully crafted story to make people believe certain things.

[giblets]

I'm assuming a fabrication would see fit to whitewash things like Peter's doubt wrt to the resurrection of Christ. This the bible does not do, which increases it's reliability as a historical source.

Actually, quite the opposite. I'm assuming that the bible is a pack of lies, and ferretting out that which is surprising for them to be included in a pack of lies. Fr'instance, saying that Christ is God, bla bla bla, not interesting. Saying that Peter abandoned Christ on the cross, hid in his room, and only came out when women told him that the tomb was empty, and then sprinted to the tomb? That's interesting! Why would a pack of lies include something which puts Peter in a bad light?

I dunno, maybe the person who wrote the story wasn't peter so they don't care if some of the stuff makes peter look bad?